I get the sense that "Mockingbird" is paying close attention to peoples awakening to media fakery in and around 9/11 and other events. Thus stories like this one I suspect are an attempt to get in front of the story as more people wake up thanks to this website.

Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie with Queen ElizabethNot all people were removed to erase history, as shown in this doctored photo of Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie with Queen Elizabeth from 1939. While running for re-election, Mackenzie must have thought he would be more electable if King George VI was removed from this picture when it was used for an election poster.

It's very unlikely that George VI was "removed" from the photo. Filling in gaps is extremely difficult to do, especially in an old-style darkroom. Much more likely that the three creatures were never together in the first place. The two "photos" - with and without George - are both composite fakes.

The Windsors were pioneers of photo fraud and deception. George VI and Elizabeth were likely never in Canada for that "photo". Why bother? It's so much easier to stay back home quaffing the G&Ts while the flunkeys compose a fake image to show the two/three of them 'together'.

Why would the fraudsters have another bash at faking it, the second time without the king? Perhaps there were compromising photographs that belied the fraud. Perhaps real photos showed George elsewhere when he was supposedly in Canada with Elizabeth and Mackenzie.

Here's another more recent dodgy Windsor photo.. At first glance, it's a great shot of Brenda commanding a magnificent stallion... Or is it? To my untrained eye, the ELA looks very iffy. Look at that impossibly vertical line to the right of her head. Not to mention the ridiculously long tail on the horse.

And here's Prince Harry studying hard at Eton College. Doting photo of Lady Di on his desk.. nice touch.. But hmm.. that bottle..and those blocking artifacts above and around the young scholar's pen, and on that orange Osram box. They don't look at all right..

Yeah, it's pretty clear the elites are worried about any stories told about them - which is why they are constantly working to control the dialogue about themselves. It seems to start with their initial propaganda department, and the news releases. But even before a story is released, we know they try to predict the effect of the story and so already have counter-arguments at the ready.

Perhaps some counter-argument articles are even pre-written with a news release because they know the news release will spark a certain reaction that they can play into. And in the case that it doesn't cause the reaction they desire - even after some prodding - they can just count their fortune. The modern Public Relations strategy seems to be a constant control of all dialogue that is at all possible to control, so now the photograph is not just volunteered - but thrust in our faces with five high-res angles and several hundred accompanying news stories and blips to every magazine and journal and paper and online source properly trained to accept the info with minimal questions.

There is a stonewall on real information. I guess it's because they are genuinely afraid for their lives. And they enjoy the rush of redirecting mass human emotion at the risk of capture. It's like a game they prefer to push until people are really squirming. Nobody seems to be complaining that they are turning the USA into a fascist state (and have already done so to the UK) so it's going to continue. There seem to be traditions in it as well, and the politicians and royals almost seem to all be puppets sometimes. Perhaps it's true - as recently stated in other posts - that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In conclusion, there is a great deal of historical precedent for anyone with any sort of political power to use it to control the story about themselves. We don't have that luxury, which is why it is common in our field of research to be "character assassinated" by any sort of bizarre things that can be shoved into the light to try to discredit our research into the truly horrendous acts of the psycho people with real political skill. Perhaps they were born with it and that's their strength - and if they didn't manipulate people they wouldn't feel "whole" or "useful". Thems is some weird folk, you might say, but they keep killing off the politicians most people actually like. So it's not just weirdness. It's psychosis. We need to keep telling people the truth of matters so we can collectively figure out how to get rid of the bad leaders.

As for that documentary snippet MsQ, Japan is just as notorious for counter-propaganda efforts as China. Look how Japan props up the Nuke Hoax (not so effectively, actually - the West is the larger windbag on the matter - but nonetheless). It's a fascinating (and hilarious) video, but it wouldn't surprise me if its theory were either completely correct or completely fabricated "back-stopping" on the part of the Japanese.

To be honest, though, I am slightly in favor of the discoveries purported in the video - the Nanking Massacre is "admitted" in Japan, but the number is surely not 300,000 as reported by China. War time is war time. But peace time for politicians is war time, too. Thus, we have propaganda thoroughly and constantly everywhere at all times.

"An exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York shows how photographers long before the digital era regularly employed techniques of manipulation in their work. Some merely compensated for the medium's limitations, while others used manipulation to create obviously fabricated scenes."

"Those doubts are encouraged by a series of photographs of the cosmonaut team, released in the 1970s, in which some individuals have been airbrushed out of scenes. The photo-doctoring was discovered because Soviet news managers lost track of which versions of photos had already been published, and re-released them after alteration."

Photo Manipulations In The USSR"Contemporary news agencies are often blamed for photo manipulations. It started long ago in fact. Back in the times of WWII graphic artists learnt to distor reality and show what they wanted to show but not what really had happened. Thus, they often added excessive Nazi atrocities, terrible ruins and looting to fill papers with horrifying images.However we do not have to exclude that such atrocities and other terrific events could really happen, it was just difficult to catch them with a camera due to their spontaneity. Photographers were rarely in a right time and in a right place. It’s today when everyone has a cameraphone we can shoot everything we see."

This is how the newsreel and film company, British Pathé did it 'back in the day':

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMG4b3rLgMw

Below is an excellent documentary about the use of different speed film photography to achieve different effects, this is part of the way they make small explosions and small areas of smoke look huge. The other thing one needs to do is to use the correct camera lens to produce the expected perspective. If both of these techniques are not used, or not used effectively, the viewer can tell something is wrong. The result looks like a model, like nearly all of the Space-X produced marketing material.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CztYafIXomg

This explains the front screen projection technique.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqq63CSGMXY

Can't forget this special effects pioneer:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdHTlUGN1zwWhat can be done with drawings and paintings can be done with photographic film.

As an aside, I think we should really question any news story coming out of Hollywood. If Hollywood promotes it, one should question whether the story was real in the first place. Hollywood loves myths like 'The Black Dahlia', Charles Manson, The Zodiac guy and so on. Of course with a small does of intellectual dishonesty we can dismiss my comment as nonsense.

Please note, I am not saying such stories are not real. I am stating we have no reason to assume anything about any of it, especially when the story promotes certain memes we see crop up from time to time. Memes like the 'occult' themed murders and so on.

One cannot just passively view the news, or even a documentary about history. This is the problem and how the news works. They want us to turn off our critical thinking. When we watch a fictionalized film, we suspend our disbelief and in doing so we put ourselves into a more suggestible state. I think there is a pretty clear pattern of deception here and this all deserves further scrutiny. The wars themselves are questionable. What we know about them and what really happened would seem to be two different things. It would seem that much of what we are told is exaggerated and in fact little more than fantasy. It seems we can say the same about some of the reported technology as well.

For example, the Black Dahlia myth has been promoted by Hollywood and the mainstream press for years, just like the Manson murders and all the rest. I'd say the source itself makes the story suspicious. These stories are horrific and that is exactly the 'trauma based mind control' tool that is used to control the mass public. If we start to see past this illusion, that very important weapon in this 'mind war' becomes useless.

The thing about news stories is that we cannot examine much of the evidence if any, at all for ourselves. What we get is an account and we can only look for logical inconstancies with the account, we cannot examine the physical evidence, run blood tests, etc. If we then rely on a fictionalized Hollywood account for our history, which we saw on a film screen, or we even rely on what we think is 'fact' by trusting our news sources, we run into the same problem. We are letting someone else tell us what to think about a subject we cannot directly address ourselves.

What we have bee told about our history is more than likely flawed and wrong. There is a clear pattern of deception on the part of the mainstream press and that same press promotes the same stories and same memes over and over. The pattern is easy to see and this might be why we are going to see various claims that one should believe the news and not distrust it, despite the overwhelming evidence that we cannot trust the NEWS for facts.

If someone lies to you once, do you believe the next thing they tell you? How many times do you have to catch someone in a lie before you realize you cannot trust anything they say?

For example the yellow journalism/propaganda promoting family we know as theHearsts:

"William Randolph Hearst's papers, the Los Angeles Herald-Express and the Los Angeles Examiner, later sensationalized the case: The black tailored suit Short was last seen wearing became "a tight skirt and a sheer blouse" and Elizabeth Short became the "Black Dahlia", an "adventuress" who "prowled Hollywood Boulevard"."

"Though the term was originally coined to describe the journalistic practices of Joseph Pulitzer, William Randolph Hearst proved himself worthy of the title. Today, it is his name that is synonymous with "yellow journalism." The Sensational Beginnings of Yellow Journalism...

... where "yellow journalism" got its start. In a classic example of the power of ownership, Hearst responded to illustrator Frederic Remington's request to return from a Havana that was quiet, "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." --Spanish--American War of 1898"

Then there is the stockholm syndrome myth of Patty Hearst:a myth may or may not be true or based on a factual event

"Patricia Campbell Hearst (born February 20, 1954), now known as Patricia Hearst-Shaw, is the granddaughter of American publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst; she became nationally known for events following her kidnapping. In 1974 while she was a 19-year-old student living in Berkeley, California, Hearst was abducted by a left-wing terrorist group known as the Symbionese Liberation Army. After being isolated and threatened with death, she became supportive of their cause, making propaganda announcements for them and taking part in illegal activities. "

MsQ wrote:I found this interesting. Nice examples if you follow the links too.

What Did We Do Before Photoshop?

"An exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York shows how photographers long before the digital era regularly employed techniques of manipulation in their work. Some merely compensated for the medium's limitations, while others used manipulation to create obviously fabricated scenes."

"This text examines the use of images in journalistic contexts and the manipulation of these images to accomplish varying objectives. It provides a framework for critical discussion among professionals, educators, students, and concerned consumers of newspapers, magazines, online journals, and other nonfiction media. It also offers a method of assessing the ethics of mass-media photos, which will help visual journalists to embrace new technologies while preserving their credibility.

Phototruth or Photofiction? also:*recounts the invention of photography and how it came to be accorded an extraordinary degree of trust;*details how photos were staged, painted, composited and otherwise faked, long before digital technology;*lists contemporary image-altering products and practices;*details many examples of manipulated images in nonfiction media and lists rationales offered in defense of them;*explains how current ethical principles have been derived;*lays groundwork for an ethical protocol by explaining conventions of taking, processing, and publishing journalistic photos; and*offers tests for assessing the appropriateness of altered images in non-fiction media.

Each chapter is followed by "Explorations" designed to facilitate classroom discussion and to integrate into those interactions the students' own perceptions and experiences. The book is intended for students and others interested in the manipulation of images.""